Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File S. 29,157, Jesse Foot, Continental (Conn.)

SERVICE
NUMBER
Continental (born)
Foot Jesse
S. 29.157
CONTENTS

3752 New York Jepe Fool dee?
of _____ in the State of _____ who was a _____ in the _____ command by Captain Osborn of the _____ command by Cole _____ in the Conn
line for _____ one from _____
Inscribed on the Roll of Albany at the rate of 240 Dollars 00 Cents per annum,
to commence on the 4th day of March, 1831. Ending 23 June 1842
Certificate of Pension issued the 7 day of Nov 1857 and sent to Dikins Coombs
Arrears to the 4th of Semi-annual allowance ending Present
{ Revolutionary Claim, } { Act June 7, 1832. }
Recorded by H.E. Robinson Clerk Book E Vol. 5 Page 24

State of New York Montgomery County ss.
On this 12th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty two, personally appeared in Open Court, before the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Montgomery and State aforesaid, Nathaniel Foot, a resident of the Town of Johnstown in the County of Montgomery and State of New York, aged seventy four years, who being first duly sworn according to law, on his oath makes the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the Act of Congress passed, June 7. 1832. That he entered the service of the United States, under the following named officers and served as herein stated: In the year 1777 in the month of August he enlisted into the Continental Service, as an artificer in the Blacksmiths business, that he was engaged and employed in shoeing horses making axes etc. for the Army of the Revolution that he was engaged at Danbury State of Connecticut, and while he was there he was frequently called out and did go out against the Enemy: That he enlisted as such artificer for the term of three years and served out that time in the manner above stated. That he enlisted in the company of Captain Brown; the other officers names of this company he does not recollect, that this company belonged to Col. Baldwins Regiment, that this was a Regiment of Mechanics consisting of different trades and arts, that he resided and enlisted in the Town of Colchester Connecticut, and served three years as above mentioned. That he was discharged and his discharge is now in his possession and that this discharge was signed by Captain Horton. He was born in Bradford Connecticut, in the year 1758. He has no record of his age. That he resided at Colchester aforesaid when called into the service. He was acquainted with Col. Swift a regular officer. That he is acquainted with the following persons residing in his neighborhood who can testify as to his character for truth and veracity and their belief of his services in the Revolution, to wit: Rev. Amos C. Treadway, Hiram Mathews, Sarah McKinlay; & has resided in Johnstown since the revolution.
He hereby relinquishes every claim whatever to a pension in any way except the present and declares that his name is not on the pension Roll of the agency of any State.
Sworn to before me this day in the year aforesaid Geo: D. Ferguson Clerk
Nathaniel Foot

State of New York } County of Fulton }
On this 27 th day of June 1850 before me a Justice of the Peace in and for said County personally appeared Jesse F. Foot — a resident of Johnstown in said County who being first duly sworn according to law doth on his oath make the following Declaration in order to obtain an increase of pension in the case of Jesse Foot deceased under the Act of Congress passed June 7 th 1832. That he is one of the children of Jesse Foot deceased who was an Artificer in the War of the Revolution and a pensioner of the United States. That said Jesse Foot died in said County on the twenty third day of June — in the Year one thousand eight hundred and forty two, and his widow died about eighteen months thereafter. That the following named are the only children are the only children of the said Jesse Foot that are now living viz. Anna Tucker, Iabez Foot, Damaris Day, and Jesse F. Foot and each of them are over twenty one Years of age. In support of which claim Declarant refers the pension Department to the evidence on file in that office and hereby appoints Wm Valentine of Albany N.Y. the Agent for the prosecution of said claim for the term of one Year And the pension Department is hereby authorized and requested to correspond with no other person than said Valentine for the aforesaid term —
Subscribed & Sworn to before me this } 27 th day of June 1850. — " — }
Jesse F. Foot
H. C. Jones Justice of the Peace
I hereby certify that I am personally acquainted with Jesse F. Foot and that he is the identical person above named & his statement is entitled to full faith & credit —
H. C. Jones Justice of the Peace

State of New York } County of Fulton }
James H. Foot and Daniel Christie
residents of Mayfield in said County who being first duly sworn according to law deposite That before Foot a pensioner of the United States died in said County on the twenty third day of June in the Year one thousand eight hundred and forty two, and his widow died about eighteen months thereafter. That the following are the only children of the said before Foot that are now living viz Anna Tooker, Deborah Foot, Damaris Day and Jesse H Foot and each of them are over twenty one years of age -
Subscribed & sworn to before me this 28th day of June 1850 Lucius Rice Justice of the Peace
James H Foot Daniel Christie
I certify that I am personally acquainted with James H Foot and Daniel Christie above named That they are persons of good moral character and standing and their statements as above set forth is entitled to full faith & credit
Lucius Rice Justice of the Peace

State of New York County of Fulton Surrogate's Court
On this 3 rd day of July 1850, it was proved by the adduction of the annexed testimony which is satisfactory to said Court that Jesse Foot a pensioner of the United States died in said County on the twenty third day of June in the Year one thousand eight hundred and forty two and his widow died about eighteen months thereafter. That the following named are the only children of the said Jesse Foot that are now living viz Anna Tooker, Jacob Foot, Damaris Day and Jesse F Foot and each of them are over twenty one Years of age
In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said Court the day and Year first above written
John Wells, County Surrogate
State of New York } Surrogate of Fulton County Fulton County Clerk's office I Stephen Wait Clerk of said County do hereby
certify that Henry C Jones before whom the affidavit of Jesse F Foot was taken or made was at the date and time of taking the said affidavit a justice of the peace in and for the said County dwelling in said County duly elected and sworn and authorized by law to take the said affidavit, and that Lucius Rice before whom the affidavit of James H Foot and Daniel Christie was taken was at the date & time of taking the same a justice of the peace of said County elected & sworn dwelling in said County and authorized by law to take the same, and further that the names of each of the said justices subscribed to the parts of the foregoing affidavits and certificates are the genuine signatures of each of the said justices of the peace. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my

seal, and the seal of said County, and the seal of the County Court of said County this 2 nd day of July A D 1850 Stephen W. Clark

N o 11609
Jesse Foot
Dec. 24 th 1832
John V. Berry agt
Johnstown Montg o Co N-York

N o 11609.
BRIEF in the case of Jesse Cook of Johnstown - County of Montgomery in the State of New York — (Act 7th June, 1832.)
1. Was the declaration made before a Court or a Judge?
Before a Court
2. If before a Judge, does it appear that the applicant is disabled by bodily infirmity?
~ ~ ~
3. How old is he?
74 years
4. State his service, as directed in the form annexed.
   Period. Duration of Service. Rank. Names of General and Field Officers under whom he served.   Years, Months, Days.     In 1777 Aug th 3 As an Artificer in Cont l Service  Gen. Captain Bborn - Col o . Baldwin - Discharged by Capt. Horton   
5. In what battles was he engaged?
none Stated
6. Where did he reside when he entered the service?
at Colchester - Conn t .
7. Is his statement supported by living witnesses, by documentary proof, by traditional evidence, by incidental evidence, or by the rolls?
Documentary proof & traditional evidence
8. Are the papers defective as to form or authentication? and if so, in what respect?
~ ~ ~
I certify that the foregoing statement and the answers agree with the evidence in the case above mentioned.
Jam s Od
Examining Clerk.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D. C., _____, 19_____
In reply to your request of _____, received _____ for a statement of the military history of Jesse Foot , a soldier of the REVOLUTIONARY WAR, you will find below the desired information as contained in his (or his widow's) application for pension on file in this Bureau. S. 29,157
   DATES OF ENLISTMENT OR APPOINTMENT. LENGTH OF SERVICE. RANK. OFFICERS UNDER WHOM SERVICE WAS RENDERED. STATE.   CAPTAIN. COLONEL.     Aug. 1777 3 yrs. Artificer Osborn James Norton Jonathan Baldwin Conn.          
Battles engaged in, /
Residence of soldier at enlistment, Colchester, Conn.
Date of application for pension, Sept 11, 1832. His claim was allowed.
Residence at date of application, Johnstown, Montgomery Co., N.Y.
Age at date of application, born in Branford, Conn. in 1758.
Remarks: he died in Fulton Co., N.Y. June 23, 1842; widows name not stated, died 18 mos afterwards. Children: Anna Tooker; Sarah; Damaris Day; Jesse F.
Respectfully,
Commissioner.

...that you just now... ...an artillery in the... ...three years it being the term of time... ...discharged... James H. Horton Astoria
Friday, August 22

L. L. Edwards Compt. of
Dickins & Coombs Pus

Johnstown Public Library
CARNEGIE BUILDING
Johnstown, New York
June 17th. 1914.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Pensions
Washington, D. C.
Gentlemen:
Please send me a copy of the military service of Jesse Foots , a soldier of the Revolution, born 1758 at Branford, Conn. residence at enlistment Colchester, Conn., served under Captain Osborn and Colonel Baldwin; also the record of his older brother Ichabod, who was born 1747, and died Feb. 26, 1830 in Franklin, N. Y.
Yours truly
Lulu Foote

"I Buy Logs!"
Edward H. Hoyt Lumber and Box Manufacturer Saratoga Springs,
Q W & N.
Steam Saw Mill Beckman and Division Sts. Box Factory, 2-4-6-8 Benedict Street.
Pension Bureau -
Nov 6 th 1902
How you kindly give me such information as you can concerning Jesse Foote, a soldier of the Revolution & pensioner. He died at Johnstown N.Y., June 24 - 1842 & I am anxious of procuring such information concerning him as will entitle his descendants to join the Com. of the Revolution. I know that he recd a pension for some years before he died, but have no knowledge of his command, regiment etc. Any information you can help me with be very highly appreciated. He was in the Army 8 years, and afterwards settled at Mayfield Fulton Co. N.Y., near Johnstown, Thanking you in advance for your favor I am
Very truly C. Hoyt

2975 INVALID By _____
Date 29/57
Jesse Root Artificer Rev. Res.
Act: June 7 th 82 nd
Index: — Vol. 2 , Page 141
[Arrangement of 1870.]

Dec 1902 1902-1903
222222 The

3750
New York
Ebenezer Foot
of Johnston in the State of New York who was a Artificer in the Company commanded by Captain Olborn of the Regt. commanded by Col Baldwin in the Connecticut line for 3 Years
Inscribed on the Roll of New York at the rate of 144 Dollars 66 per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1831.
Certificate of Pension issued the 31 day of Decem- ber 1832 and sent to Geo V Remy Johnston Montgomery Co -
Arrears to 4th of Apr 1832 — $216.00 Pens=ant. allowed ending 4 Mar 33 72.00 $ 288.00
{ Revolutionary Claim, } { Act June 7, 1832. }
Recorded by Inoburn Clerk, Book D Vol. 5 Page 88

Free Lots Swoon applications
11609
Sepe Foot
admitted
3 years artificer
$144
on Rolls 3 years
11609 N.Y.

We Amos C Treadway, a clergyman, resident of the town of Johnstown and Almon Mathews residing in the same town of Mayfield certify that we are well acquainted with Jesse Foot, who has subscri- -bed and sworn to the above declaration; that we believe him to be seventy four years of age; that he is reputed and believed in the neigh- -borhood where he resides, to have been a soldier of the Revolution and that we concur in that opinion. Amos C. Treadway Sworn and Subscribed the day and year aforesaid: Almon Mathews in Open Court. Geo: D. Ferguson, clerk.
And this said Court do hereby declare their Opinion, after the investigation of the matter, and after putting the interrogatories presented by the War Department, that the above named applicant was a revolution- ary soldier and served as he states: And the Court further certifies, that it appears to them that Amos C. Treadway who has signed the preceding Certificate, is a clergyman, resident in the town of Johnstown and that Almon Mathews ..... who has also signed the same is a resident in the same town of Mayfield , and is a credible person and that their statement is entitled to credit
I George D. Ferguson clerk of the Court of common Pleas of Montgomery County, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of Jesse Foot for a pension
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office this 26th day of September 1832 Geo: D. Ferguson.

Argument of Mr Coombs be in the pension case of Lifor Foote
act 7 June 1832
to be filed

Washington, Oct. 10 th 1857.
Sir:
I beg leave, respectfully, to appeal to you, from the decision of the Commissioners of Pensions, in the matter of the application of the children of Lepe Foote, dec d . for arrears of Pension due their said father, at his decease, under act of 7 th June 1832.
Said Lepe Foote was an Artificer , in Col. Baldwin's Regiment, in the war of the Revolution. He enlisted on the 4 th of August 1777, for three years, faithfully served out the term of his enlistment, and was honorably discharged at the end thereof, in August 1780. The Commissioners of Pensions allowed the claim for Pension at the rate of $178. 00 per annum, and on the 4 th inst. issued a certificate accordingly. I claim that the Pension should be allowed at the rate of $240. 00 per annum, and I have retained the certificate, for the purpose of submitting the question to your decision, before sending it to the Claimants.
As there is no disputed question of fact involved in the case, the question which I now have the honor to submit, is purely a question

of law .
There were, in the Revolutionary Army, two Regiments or Corps of Artificers. One of these Regiments was raised by the Quarter Master General at a very early period of the War, and placed under the Command of Col. Jonathan Baldwin , Chief Engineer of the Army; but never was fully incorporated, as a Regiment of the line , until the 12 th of November 1779 - (see Journal of Congress of that date) - but previous to that date had been attached to the Department of the Quarter Master General.
The other Regiment or Corps of Artificers, was raised by Col. Benjamin Flower , Commissary General of Military Stores, pursuant to instructions issued to him by Genl. Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, in January 1777. This Regiment or Corps of Artificers was raised by Col. Flower, between the last-mentioned date, and the 18 th of September following; on which day he reported to Congress (see Journal of that date) a list of the names of his officers, and asked Congress to

Commission them; and on the 11 th of Nov. following, Congress directed Commissions to issue to said Officers. (See Journal of that date.)
not two corps After the raising of the last-mentioned regiment, therefore, there were in the Army two distinct Corps of Artificers; one belonging to the Department of the Quartermaster General, and under the Command of Col. Baldwin , and the other belonging to the Department of the Commissary General of Military Stores, and under the Command of Col. Flower , who was the Commissary Genl. of Military Stores.
I shall in my subsequent remarks, designate them, for the sake of perspicuity, as Col. Baldwin's and Col. Flower's Artificers.
All the men belonging to Col. Flower's Regiment, (who enlisted for 3 years or during the war) are admitted to be entitled to pensions at the rate of $20 per month, or $240 per annum , and are placed upon the pension roll at that rate. And at one time, not long since, the Pension Office decided, that Col. Baldwin's Artificers were entitled to be placed upon the same footing, and a number of cases have been

admitted accordingly. The Commisioners has lately, however, reconsidered this decision, and now decides, that Col. Baldwin's Artificers, for all service rendered prior to the 16 th of November 1779 , are entitled to have their pensions computed on the pay of $12. per month, and for all service rendered subsequent to that date , on the pay of $20. 00 per month. It is upon this principle that the pension of said Lepe Foote has been fixed at $178. instead of $240. per annum, he having served only about nine months subsequent to the 16 th of November 1779.
The effect of this decision is, to make an inequality in the pensions of those who served the same length of time , in the same Corps , and in the same grade ; an effect apparently so unjust and inequitable , as to be well calculated to excite doubts as to the soundness of the construction from which it results. For instance, under this decision, one of Col. Baldwin's men, who enlisted as early as the 16 th of November 1776, for three years, and served out his time, is only entitled to pension at
as elsewhere

the rate of $144, while a member of the same Company , who enlisted on the 16 th of November 1878, for the like term (and served for one third of said time side by side with him) is pensioned at the rate of $240 per annum; and those who enlisted between said dates, are pensioned at various rates between the two sums aforesaid, according to the respective dates of their enlistments.
This inequality in the pensions of Col. Baldwin's men, which the Commissioner has established, is based, I apprehend, upon the mistaken idea, that prior to the 16 th of November 1879, the pay of Col. Baldwin's men was only $12 per month, and that by the resolution of that date the pay was increased to $20 per month. That this is a mistaken idea, I have no doubt I shall be able most clearly to demonstrate.
In the first place I beg leave to remark, that previous to the 16 th of November 1879, no fixed rate of pay had ever been established by Congress for Col. Baldwin's Artificers ; but the matter of the rate of their
This is an invariable rule in the pay of pensions

pay had been left to the discretion of the Quarter-Master-General and Commander-in-Chief, subject to the approval of Congress, which was from time to time expressly or impliedly given.
As early as the 2 d of December 1775, we find in the Journals of Congress the following resolution.
"That this Congress approve the terms "on which the Artificers of different "sorts have been employed, in the Army, "and that the General go on upon "the present agreement, as being the "best that can probably be made."
Under this authority from Congress, the Quarter-Master-General, under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, went on enlisting and keeping up his Corps of Artificers, and from time to time regulating the amount of their pay, as the exigencies of the times made necessary, and his proceedings in the premises were repeatedly, by implication, if not in express terms, approved by Congress. Fortunately, records have been preserved, showing exactly what rate of pay was actually

allowed to these men, during all the time previous to the resolution of 16 th November 1779, when Congress for the first time expressly legislated upon the subject. In the Archives of the State of Massachusetts, the pay-rolls of those Companies of Col. Baldwin's Regiment, raised by Massachusetts, have been preserved; and there are now in the Pension Office a large number of Certificates from the Secy. of State of Massachusetts, showing exactly what pay these men actually received. These documents show that they were never paid at the rate of $12. per month after the year 1776 : - that from the 1 st of Jan'y. 1777, to the 1 st of April 1778, they were paid £5. 5/ (or $17. 50 / 100 ) per month: - from the 1 st of April to the 1 st July 1778, at the rate of £9. (or $30.) per month; and after the 1 st of July 1778, at the rate of £13. 10. (or $45.) per month. I appeal to the documents above-mentioned, now on file in the Pension Office, for full and conclusive evidence of the correctness of this statement.
(over)

The pay of Col. Flower's Artificers, was fixed by Congress on the 11 th of February 1778, at $20 per month, and such increase thereon as Col. Flower should find it necessary to make. (see Journal of that date)
Col. Baldwin's artificers were, however, at the date of this resolution , actually receiving pay at the rate of $17. 50 / 100 per month, and shortly afterwards their pay was raised to thirty dollars per month, and soon again further raised to forty-five dollars , as I have shown above.
And under the discretion given to Col. Flower in said Resolution, he was compelled to increase the pay of his men, to even a higher rate than Col. Baldwin's men were allowed ; for "about June or July 1779," the pay of the officers was doubled , "and the pay of the men increased, so that they might receive from thirty to sixty dollars according to their merit and industry respectively "
(see copy of the letter of Timothy Pickering Q.M. Genl. to Gov. Trumbull, of Oct 22 o 1780) herewith presented.)
V

This inequality between the pay of Flower's and of Baldwin's men was the subject of Complaint to Congress by the Q. M. General, in the fall of 1779, in consequence of which Congress passed the resolution of 16 th November 1779, in these words:
"That the subsistence and pay of the other "officers and men of the said artificers, - "[Col. Baldwin's ] be the same with that "of the Artillery Artificers under the Command of Col. B. Flower ."
Now, surely, it would be an error to say that this resolution increased the pay of Col. Baldwin's Artificers, to 20 dollars per month, when they then were, and for more than sixteen months past had been, receiving forty-five dollars per month. What, then, was the effect of this resolution upon their pay? Evidently, nothing more than to produce uniformity in the pay of the two Corps of Artificers, engaged in the same kind of service. The pay of Col. Baldwin's men had been fixed by the Q.M. General and Commander-in-Chief, acting in the exercise of a discretion , implicitly given by Congress: The pay of Col. Flower's

men had been fixed  by  Congress at 20 dollars per month, with such increase as Col. Flower, in the exercise of a discretion , expressly given him by Congress, should find it necessary to allow. But in the exercise of this discretion, Col. Flower had found it necessary to give more than double the minimum amount fixed by Congress. So that, in November 1779, the pay of both regiments depended upon a discretion exercised by different officers, who had so exercised that discretion as to produce an inequality in the pay of the same kind of troops. The whole scope and effect of said resolution of the 16 th of November 1779, was, therefore, to give Col. Baldwin's men the same pay that Col. Flower, (who had express authority to increase the pay of his men)- should, in the exercise of that discretion, allow to the men under his command; and thus produce uniformity in the pay of the two Regiments.
3 It is a significant fact, that James Pickering, Q.M. Genl. in the document herewith presented, and above referred to, makes it a matter of Com-

=plaint, that notwithstanding the passage of said resolution of 16 th November 1779, the Artificers in his Department, (Col. Baldwin's men) had not been put on an equality, as to pay, with Col. Flower's men, their pay " never having exceeded forty-five dollars per month, the foremen excepted, who have been allowed fifty."
Now if Col. Baldwin's men are entitled to any pension at all , for services rendered prior to the 16 th Nov r 1779, (and the Commission admits they are) it appears to me a perfectly clear proposition, that their pension must be graduated by the amount of pay they actually received , or by the minimum amount fixed by Congress, in the Resolution of 11 th Feb y . 1778, and made applicable to this Regiment by the subsequent resolution of 16 th Nov. 1779. The last-mentioned measure of compensation, being altogether most favorable to the Government, and being one which will produce perfect equality among men who performed services of the same character , is the one now contended for. Surely, there can be no propriety in graduating the

pension by a rate of pay never at  any time fixed by law , and which was not the actual rate of pay at any time while soldier claiming was in the service.
Lepe Foote, for whose services we now claim, never served a single day while the pay of Col. Baldwin's men was 12 dollars per month. When he entered the service, the actual rate of pay was $17.50 per month. About eight months afterwards, the actual rate of pay was increased to $30. per month; in three months after which it was again increased to $45. per month, and so remained to the end of his term of service. So that he in fact served 8 months at $17.50 per month, 3 months at $30, and more than two years at forty-five dollars per month.
It is admitted that he was entitled to a pension for two years service. The law declares, that for two years service, the soldier shall receive a pension equal to his full pay in the line. Now what was Lepe Foote's " full pay " in the line?
A liberal construction would say,

forty-five dollars , that being the amount actually received for more than two years of the time he served. This, however, is not claimed. All we ask for, is, the amount that the most strict and limited constructions that can be adopted with any color of consistency, will give. If you discard the amount of pay actually received, as the standard of computation, surely there can be no other ground to fall back upon, but the minimum amount of pay fixed by Congress as aforesaid. There can be no shadow of propriety, in going back to a time antérieur to the date of his enlistment , to find the rate of pay then allowed, under the discretion of the Q.M. General, and reproducing the amount allowed and paid by the same authority , during the time he was actually in the service. This would be graduating his pension not by the amount of " his full pay in the line ," but by the amount of some other man's full pay.
It is in fact a question of serious doubt in my mind, whether Col. Baldwin's men for any service in 1775 and '76, (when their pay was $12 per

month) are intitled to any pension at all, - upon the ground that their services at that time were not of a military character . Until they were by act of Congress placed upon the military establishment, and made subject to the rules and articles of war, it is, to say the least, doubtful, whether they should be considered in any other light than that of mere hired laborers, in a civil capacity . On the 11 th of February 1778, however, Congress resolved,
"That all officers, Artificers and others in the ordnance and military department shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, in the same manner as other officers in the artillery of the United States."
If it be true, therefore, that the Artificers were by this resolve first placed upon the military establishment , it becomes absolutely absurd to undertake to graduate the pension of a man who served after its passage, by the rate of compensation allowed to Artificers before they were properly in the military service at all, and upon the footing of

Mere hired laborers, in a civil capacity.
In conclusion, I beg leave to remark, that the construction I am now contending for, is the same that was acted upon by the Pension Office only a few weeks ago, and that a number of claims in all respects like the one I now present, have been allowed and paid at the rate of $240 per annum. For the sake of consistency therefore, the practice should not be changed, unless clearly wrong . I beg leave further to remark, that the construction I now contend for is not even liable to the objection that it will bring in a large  clap of claims, and cause a large  amount of money to be paid out. It only embraces such members of their  one  mea sure regiments (and their widows) as survived the passage of the pension laws, the greater portion of whom have already been allowed and paid, at the rate now claimed . Of the men who served in said regiments, a complete  roll exists, so that there can be no uncertainty as to the number who will be embraced.

The fact that a number of others, who served in Col. Baldwin's reg't prior to the 16 th of November 1779, at the rate of $240. per annum, will cause those who stand in the same category, and who are now refused the same rate of pension, serious and lasting dissatisfaction, & induce the belief that partiality has been shown by the agents of the Government.
None of these considerations, I admit, ought to have any weight towards inducing a wrong construction of the law. I respectfully submit, however, that they may all receive properly taken into the account in settling a doubtful construction .
I have the honor to be
Very respectfully
Your ob't serv't
J. P. Coombes
Atty for Client
Hon. Alex. H. H. Stuart
Sec'y of The Interior.

Pension Office Oct 16. 1857.
Sir,
In order to form a correct opinion in the case of Foote presented by Mr Coombes it will be necessary to trace the history of the service of Artificers from its inception. In doing so I shall not confine myself to the single case under consideration but shall endeavor to establish some principle which shall apply uniformly and equitable to all of the cases that may be presented.
The first question that presents itself is what was the nature of the service of Artificers - Was it Civil or was it military if military and does it come within the policy of the pension laws?
So soon as an army was formed it was found necessary to employ Artificers, as they are styled, or artisans, who should exercise their various handicrafts in connection with the operations of the public military service. At the beginning the greater portion of the men selected for these duties were soldiers draughted from the line of the army but at the same time, many were hired purely as artificers and were taken from the pursuits of civil life. The wages allowed for this description of duty seems, so far as I can gather, to have been $12 per month which rate ap

hears to have continued during the years 1775-76. The selection was made 2 by the Quarter Master General, as a matter com- ing within the general scope of his official duties and not by any express authority from Congress.
On the 2 a day of December Congress passed the following resolution
"That this Congress approve the terms on "which the artificers of different sorts have been "employed in the army and that the General go on "upon the present agreement , as being the best that "can probably be made"
This resolution was confirmatory in its character and authorised the Commander in Chief from that time forward to continue to engage the services of artificers upon the terms that then existed, whatever they may have been, and which had been sanctioned by the General. It is reason- able to suppose that these terms varied accord- ing to the exigencies of the service, but in the latter part of the year 1776, the pay of the officers was the same with that of Artillery Officers and that of the men was $12 per month (see Col. Pickering's letter dated Oct r 22, 1780.)
All subsequent resolutions of Congress recognize the acts of the Quarter Master General as having been based upon the practice which had been pursued anterior to the passage of the resolution of Dec r 2, 1775 by which it had been

sanctioned. It is proper perhaps to state that originally 3 the engagements of artificers were for, comparatively speaking, short periods but about the beginning of the year 1777 these agreements or engagements began to be made for three years or during the war . Whether the character or nature of the engagements was essentially changed by the extension of the time for which they were made is a matter about which some persons have entertained doubts. These persons appear to regard these engagements as assuming, by the extension above mentioned, the nature of military enlistments. My own opinion is that such was not and could not be the case and that a civil agreement to perform certain duties in themselves civil, for three years is just as purely a civil contract as an engagement to perform the same duties for three months.
It is believed that no action of Congress having specific reference to Quarter Masters Artificers took place until the 12 th of November 1779. when it was resolved that the eleven companies of them which previously acted independently of each should be embodied into one corps, under the Command of Col d Baldwin and that the Officers and men of the corps should be considered as part of the quotas of the eighty battalions as apportioned on the several states to which

they respectively belonged" and on the 16 th of the 4 same month Congress recommended to the several States to allow them "all the benefits provided for officers and soldiers in the line of their quotas of the Continental Battalions, except the half pay and resolved that the pay of the officers and men should be the same with that of the Artillery Ar- tificers. Of the military character of the services of this regiment, or of their then being "bound to military service" after the passage of the above resolutions I need say nothing, as to express admo- upon the subject would be to run counter to the established usage of this Department, under which pensions have been for some time granted to men Col l Flower's Reg t and Col l Baldwin's Reg t .
If the question were a new one I might go into details, to shew that the service of an Artificer is not military of itself and that in fact its civil character, as being performed by mechanics and artisans well acquainted with their respective trades, constitutes its peculiar excellence. On this head I will merely quote from the letter of Col l Pe r Kering, who was at the time Quarter Master General, of Oct r 22. 1780. in which he says. "Artifi- cers with the army are in fact indispensably ne- cessary, and here after they may form a useful corps in action, as they are to be furnished with arms and at certain times instructed in the use

of them". Previously to the time when the Quarter Master General wrote this letter, it would seem they had not been "furnished with arms" nor had they been "instructed in the use of them". It will also be observed that the same distinguished gentleman speaks of artificers "with" the army, and not in or composing an integral part of the army.
"But to proceed. The corps of Artillery Artificers was first raised by order of Genl Washington in the year 1777. Its officers were commissioned in September of that year by Congress and on the 11 th of February 1778, its pay was first ascertained as being the same with that of the Officers and men of the Artillery. It was then that, to use the words of Coll Pickering "Congress arranged the Department of Military Stores comprehending therein the corps of Artillery Artificers ".
This was done by Mr Love's and his arrangement.
I have endeavoured to give you a history of the service of Artificers in as succinct a form as possible, from which it will appear that Artillery Artificers did not exist, as such, until the organization of the corps under Coll Flowers was complete on the 11 th of Feby, by assigning to it the same pay as that received by the officers and men of the Artillery.
On the other hand the Quarter Masters

Artificers were known and recognized from the first organization of the army as being indispensable with it.
The question now suggests itself whether artificers were at first regarded as forming a part of the military establishment or merely as incidental there to, and, if the latter, when and by what means they became a constituent part of that establishment.
It will, I think, be universally conceded, that artificers did not originally belong to the army proper, except so far as the soldiers who were draughted from the line were concerned. It is scarcely necessary to remark in passing that no peculiarity of employment for which they might be detailed could affect the relation in which they stood as enlisted soldiers, so as to deprive them of their military rights. Artificers were originally hired to exercise their handicrafts for the use of the army and received wages proportionate, as was supposed, to the importance and value of the services they rendered. Hence when the wages of the Artificers were $12 per month  The pay of soldiers was much less, varying according to the arm to which they were attached.
If then artificers were not originally considered as military men or as constituting in the capacity of artificers portions of the military force

It would seem that the resolution passed December 2, 1775 regards them in a civil rather than a military light. That resolution says.
"This Congress approve the terms on which the artificers of different sorts have been employed in the army and that the general go on upon the present agreement , as being the best that can probably be made"
The phraseology here used does not convey to my mind the idea of a military enlistment . The resolution speaks of " employment " in the army and the present " agreement " as being "the best that can probably be made." From the language here used I would infer that artificers, were artisans employment with the army under an agreement or contract, the terms of which might be varied to meet the exigencies of the service, as well in regard to duration as to amount of compensation.
Col Pickering regards all subsequent resolutions of Congress as recognizing the above resolution as the rule of action. He says in his letter: "All the subsequent resolutions of Congress place the officers of the Quarter Masters Artificers on the footing here mentioned, as to their pay and were doubtless grounded on a practice previously established by the Quarter Master General and ratified by the Act above

recited and under this resolution or countenanced by its authority I conceive the enlisting orders above mentioned were issued for I have met with no intervening resolve". The enlisting orders here mentioned, refer to a preceding part of the letter which runs as follows. "So that in the latter end of the year 1776, the pay of the officers is said to have been the same with that of the Artillery officers and the pay of the privates $12 per month ". "In proof of the latter they have shewn me an old copy of enlisting orders, dated the 28 th of Decr 1776".
Col Pickering, who, it will be borne in mind, was at the time Quarters Master General and perhaps understood as well as any other human being the precise condition of the Department of the service under his charge, goes on to say "After this I find no act of Congress respecting the Quarters Masters' Artificers until the 12 th of Novr 1779. when it was resolved that the several companies of them should be incorporated and "that the officers and men of the corps should be considered as part of the Quotas of the right battalions as apportioned on the several States to which they respectively belonged" and on the 16 th of the same month Congress recommended to the several States to allow them

all the benefits provided for officers and soldiers in the line of their quotas of the Continental Battalions except the half pay".
I do not agree with Mr Coombs in thinking that Baldwin's men were included in the resolution of Feb y 11. 1778 which says "that all officers, artificers, and others in the Ordnance and military department shall be governed by the rules of war in the same manner as other officers in the artillery of the United States simply because they were not in the "ordnance and military department" of which the resolution makes Howlers Artillery Artificers a part.
Col Pickering must have been of somewhat of the same opinion, as he says in his letter, after speaking of the resolution of Dec r 2. 1775. "after this I find no act of Congress respecting the Quarters Masters Artificers" (Baldwin's men) until the 12 th of Nov r 1779. "thus passing unnoticed the resolution of the 11 Feb y 1778.
The resolutions of the 12 th & 16 th Nov r 1779. are then the first recognitions of Baldwin's Corps as forming a part of those who were "bound to military service" under which head, I presume, if at all, the corps is to be brought within the pale of the Pension System.
The important question next arises

16 whether Col d Baldwins men are entitled to pensions for service rendered before the passage of the resolution of 16 th November 1779. and if so to what allowance.
The point is not now to be decided by me. To the first part of the proposition the answer is that this Department has been in the habit of allowing pensions for services as artificers previous to the embodiment of Baldwins Regiment at $12 a month and whether it be $12. or $50, it is immaterial, the principle is the same. For my own part I do not hesitate to say that, if the point were now open for decision, I should decide say that the artificers in the companies embodied by the resolution of Nov r 16 th 1779 into a Regiment under the Command were not "bound to in the sense used by the Pension Laws military service and as such entitled to pensions. The matter has however in my opinion been settled by the regular practice of the Department. To decide now, that artificers are not entitled to pensions for services prior to Nov r 16 th 1779, would be to upset the action of this office in hundreds of instances and to no good purpose so far as regards the past. With reference to the future - how far would it be equitable to withhold from the remnant that remains, the benefits which their

11 comrades have been permitted to enjoy through an error committed by this office.
The Resolution of Nov r 16 1779 cannot act retroactively. This office has heretofore established $12 as the rate to be allowed for service anterior to the resolution. The rate pay which appears to have been in use in the latter part of 1776 and has been recognized by the resolution providing for the settlement between Aug t 1. 1780 and the last of Dec r 1781, passed in 1782. This resolution must have been passed with a full knowledge of all the facts connected with the service and may be regarded as their deliberate decision on the question of artificers pay in 1780 and 1781. If entitled to pensions at all 2 Masters. artificers are not entitled to more than the rate which Congress has recognized by its formal action in the resolution above refer- red to. The settlement here mentioned was ordered with a full knowledge of all the varia- tions which had taken place in the pay of artificers and after the Reg t of Col d Baldwin had ceased to be in service, with the exception of a single company which, it is believed had been merged in Flowers Reg t of Artillery ar- tificers.
With reference to the resolution of 23 rd

Feb y 1780. to which my attention has been called I can only say that it gave to the officers of Baldwin's Reg d an increased allowance of subsistence from of $100. per month from the 18 th of Aug st 1779 which they would not otherwise have had and does nothing more
The resolution of Feb y 75. 1778 merely des- ignates  describes the military Line of the Quarter Mas- ters Department as including that portion of it which regulated marches, encampments order of battle &c as described in the books of the profession. I am not aware that artificers discharged any of these duties and if they did not they belonged to the civil line.
I have the honor to be
Very Resp t V Yr Ob t Serv t J. H. Dridge
J. E. Heath Esq y Comm r of Pensions.

Leje Foot, Sec d
2 yrs Antel's, Artificer due to p 240 240 per annum deduct former Grays at $144 per annum Comm'g 4 March 1831 & end'g 23 June 1842. Payable to
Anna Tooker, Damaris Day, Isabel Foot & Leje F. Foot, only surviving children
Alb 9
Dickens & Coombes Present

Washington, Sept. 16 th 1857.
Sir:
On the 12 th of August 1850, I presented the claim of Lepe  Scott , son of Lepe  Scott deceased who was a pensioner on the New York roll at $144. 00 per annum, for an increase of said pension.
No report has ever been made to me in the case, it having been informally kept up over, with my consent.
I now respectfully request that the case may be taken up and decided
I am, very respectfully Your obed servt J. L. Coombs
J. E. Heath Esq Comm r of Pensions

Washington, Oct. 20 th 1887.
Sir:
Having read the very elaborate report of Mr. Dawidge, in answer to my argument in the case of Sipe & Root, etc.: I think I am justified in saying, that after taking his ingenuity to the utmost, he has been unable to bring forth any thing tending to weaken the force of my argument in the slightest degree, except by assuming a totally new ground , in direct conflict, not only with your late decision upon which the claim was allowed, but also in direct conflict with uniform decisions of your predecessors, and of all other officers of the Government charged with the execution of the Pension laws, ever since the Pension system existed. If, therefore, I can succeed in showing that this new ground is untenable, my argument will stand unassailed and unshaken.
This new ground assumed by Mr. Dawidge, is, that prior to the 12 th of November 1779, Col. Baldwin's Artificers were not in the military service , and subject to the rules and articles of war; and consequently that their service prior to that date was not such as to entitle them to the benefits of the pension laws.
He admits that in 1779, the Quarter Master General raised the Eleven Companies referred to in the resolve of 12 th Nov. 1779, by enlistments for three years or during the war . But

he supposes that these enlistments were no- thing more  for than Civil Contracts to serve the Government, as hired laborers , for the respective terms of three years and during the war. He supposes, further, that when the resolves of 12 th Nov. 1779 were passed, incorporating  these Eleven Companies into a regiment  of the Continental line , their relation to the government became thereby instantly and mystically changed; and that which was before only a civil contract , became a military engagement .
In the first place I beg leave to re- mark, that the fact that Congress did in- corporate these companies into a regiment  of the Continental line , is, to my mind, con- clusive evidence that they were actually in the military service at the time of being so incorporated. Nothing, to my mind, can be more absurd, than to sup- pose that Congress would incorporate into  the Continental line , a corps of mere  hired laborers , bound to service only by a civil contract . What would you think of a resolution of Congress incorporating into  the line of the Army , all the laborers now employed on the Extension of the Capitol, or all the Clerks in your office? It would be a proceeding very much like what Mr. Dandridge supposes Congress did in reference to Col. Balch =

win's artificers, by the resolution of 12 th Nov. 1779. Not only is it, in my opinion, absurd to suppose that Congress would have attempted, thus to convert a civil contract into a military engagement, but I deny that Congress had any right or power to do any such thing.
I desire that you will keep in mind, that Mr. Dawridge admits that these men in 1777 engaged to serve the government for three years or during the war; but he claims that they only engaged to serve in a civil capacity , and were bound by the laws governing civil contracts , and not under any military obligations, until the resolve of 12 th Nov. 1779, when their relation to the government was changed, and they from that time became subject to military obligations. Now there are only two ways in which a man can be brought under subjection to military laws and obligations. One way is by being drafted  draughted , and the other is by enlisting or engaging to serve the government in a military capacity. In this last mentioned mode, it is a matter of contract between the soldier and the Government. But the incidents to such a contract are essentially different from the incidents to a mere civil

contract. The man who engages to serve in a military capacity , surrenders his personal liberty for the time he engages to serve. His officers have a right to compel him by force to serve out his time. If he deserts , he may be arrested and brought back by force ; and may even be shot by sentence of a Court martial. But the man who engages to serve the government for a particular time in a civil capacity , does not thus surrender his personal liberty , or subject himself to any of the above mentioned consequences, by refusing to perform his contract. If he deserts the service, the government can only pursue the remedies prescribed by the laws governing civil contracts . He may forfeit his pay, or subject himself to a suit for damages; but he cannot forfeit his life or his personal liberty .
Now Mr. Dawridge supposes that these Artificers were in 1777, merely hired to serve the government for 3 years or during the war, under a civil contract . If so, could that engagement, by the act of one of the contracting parties only , be converted into a military engagement , to which all the above-mentioned incidents to a military engagement would attach? Clearly it could not. In order to change them

character of their service from civil to military, in Nov. 1779, two things would have been indispensable. 1 st They must have been released from the existing civil contract; & 2 o , They must have re-engaged to serve in a military capacity . Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that a man or a number of men could be transferred from civil life to the military, without any agreement on apert on his part, less a simple resolution of Congress. A military engagement is as much a matter of contract as any other engagement, in regard to which the old maxim holds good, that "it takes two to make a bargain". But according to Mr. Davidge, it only took one party to make a bargain in this instance; a bargain, too, by which the one party aperting, acquired power over the liberty and life of the other party, whose apert to bargain was never asked.
I have not time, at present, to pursue the subject further; nor can I suppose it necessary to say more in answer to this new ground assumed by Mr. Davidge.
I will only say, in conclusion that even since the passage of the earliest pension laws, these men have been admitted by the government to have

been in the military service prior to the 12 th of Nov. 1779. A number of them were allowed pensions under the act of 1818, for service prior to said date, as Mr. Cole will show you if you enquire of him. And they and their widows have been uniformly admitted to pensions for like services, under all subsequent acts.
But there is one other fact, which conclusively settles the matter. These men who enlisted for 3 years in 1777, for three years, at the end of the time all got discharges for three years of military service . Several of these discharges are on file in your office, and will speak for themselves. If Mr. Dridge is right in supposing that their military service commenced on the 12 th of Nov. 1779, their discharges would have only specified service from that date.
Very respectfully Your obed servt J. J. Coombs

Pension Office Oct 21. 1854.
Sir,
I have read Mr Coombs' argument in the case of Artificers and have only to say in reply that if he be right, then $12 per month is the only pay which can be recognized as a basis for a pension for service rendered anterior to Nov r 16. 1779. Col t Pickering's letter states expressly if my memory serves me aright that at the end of the year 1776, the pay of the officers of Quarter Masters' Artificers was the same with that of the officers of Artillery and the pay of privates was $12 per month, as was shewn by an old roll which had been handed to him. Col t Pickering seems to think that the resolution of February 11 1778 did not reach the Artificers of his own Department for he says that after the Resolution of Dec r 2. 1778, I think, (see his letter) there was no Legislative action by Congress in reference to Quarter Masters' Artificers until the 12 th & 16 th Nov r 1779. when they were embodied in one regiment under the command of Col t Baldwin. The resolution of SL  or '82 provides that

such of these artificers as had not been set- tled with up to the end of the year '81, should be settled with at the rate of $12. per month from August the 1 st to the last of Dec r 1781. Here we have Congress recognizing $12 as the pay of Quarter Master's Artificers in the first place by their approval of what had been done and at the end of 1776 when the roll of which Col d Rhea was under the was paid resolution of Dec r 2. 1775, and in the second place in this settlement. This, I presume has been the ground of the action of this office, allowing these men pensions at the rate of $12 per month and I am yet to learn, that any action was had by Congress putting the matter upon a different basis until Nov-12 th & 16 th 1779. Mr Coombs seems to rely upon the resolution of Feb y 11. 1778 for this purpose but I can see nothing in that resolution to sustain his views and as I said before Col d Pickering the Quarter Master General does not seem to think his views included under that resolution when he de- signates the resolutions of the 12 th & 16 th Nov r as the first formal action in regard to them sub- sequent to the passage of the resolution of previous to which the pay had been $12 per month Dec r 2. 1775. You will bear in mind that the times of Baldwins men expired in 1780 with the exception of a few who were organized into a single Company which joined, if I am not mistaken Flowers Reg n

Of one thing I feel confident which is that the resolutions of Novr 12 & 16 cannot operate retrospectively and that, if, as I think, the resolution of Feby 11. 1778 does not include Quarter Master's Antiquers, the only ground left on which, under the practice of this office to estimate  ground the pensions of these men is the rate formally adopted by Congress with reference to the settlement of the pay of a portion of them, who were of course entitled to the same rate that their comrades for I would presume Congress looked upon them all with the same eyes  views . Mr Coomb's argument seems to me to prove too much, if indeed it proves any thing, for it is to supposed that the contracts with these contracts Antiquers although not strictly military were so framed as to secure the services of the persons who entered into them, for all the purposes for which they were engaged with the army. He will not I suppose put them on the same ground with the military enlistments of soldiers to bear arms and undergo the duties of watching & incident to the life of a soldier. Coll Pickering, writing in 1780, says that thereafter they were to carry arms and be instructed in the use of them at particular times, which shews very clearly, that such had not been the case previously. I can easily conceive that a

man might engage to exercise his craft as an artificer for three years and make himself subject to the police regulations of the Army, for the time being, without enlisting as a soldier to bear arms. If so the resolutions of Novs 12 th & 16 th did not essentially change the nature of their engagements, for in 1780 the Commander of them, the Quarter Master General spoke of them as persons who were to be instructed in the use of arms, after that time. It may be true that this office has conferred upon some of these artificers the benefits of the pension law, but I must be permitted to say that the fact of this its having done so does not convince me that they came within the policy of the Pension system, for however able your predecessor may have been, he was like other mortals subject to error. I do not wish to upset the system heretofore established established and therefore I would say pursue it by placing the pensions of these artificers on the same basis as heretofore say $12. as the only rate for which we have Congressional sanction in the form of legislative enactment.
Very Resp y
J. E. Heath Com d of Pensions
Yr Ob t Serv t J. N. Davidson

Washington, Oct. 23 rd 1887.
Sir:
There is one argument in favor of the claim I have presented in the case of Seps Foote Acct. which to my mind is conclusive, but which I have not hitherto distinctly presented in writing. It is this:
It is a well settled rule, established long ago by your predecessor, and on mature deliberation confirmed by yourself, that the rate of pay in the Continental line , during any given period of the war of the Revolution, shall govern the pensions for service in the same grade , during the same time , in any other line or corps. Now I simply ask the application of this rule, to the case under consideration.
In 1777 there were two corps of Artificers enlisted, for the term of three years or during the war. One was the Regiment raised by Col. Flower, which was, from its organization a Regiment of the Continental line . The pay of the men in this regiment, was fixed by Congress, on the 18 th of Feb'y. 1778, at twenty dollars per month.
The other corps consisted of the eleven companies raised by the Quarter-Master General, in 1777, but not incorporated into the Continental line , till the 12 th of November 1779. Previously to their being incorporated

into the Continental line, we can find no act or resolution of Congress, fixing the rate of their pay, but we find that their actual pay as shown by the pay rolls, was much more than twenty dollars per month.
Now upon what principle will you graduate their pensions, for service performed prior to the 12 th of Nov. 1779? But for the rule above alluded to, making the pay in the Continental line the standard, there clearly would be no other standard, but the pay they actually received ; which would give a much larger pension than we claim. But here stops the rule, which says, that the pay allowed in the Continental line shall govern all pensions for services in the same grade but not in the Continental line .
If this rule is to be applied, it is useless to enquire what was the legal rate of pay to Col. Baldwin's Artificers prior to the 12 th Nov. 1779? Because, when you ascertain it, it is not the standard by which the pensions are to be adjusted . The question is, what was the established rate of pay during said time in the Continental line, for service in the same grade ? I answer, the Regiment of Col. Flower, was the only Regiment or Corps of the same kind of troops then in the Continental line , and it is admitted that their pay, at least from was established by law at $20 per month.

I ask, then, does not the rule of your office above alluded to, give Baldwin's Artificers the same rate of pension as Flower's Artificers are entitled to, for service during the same period of time? That Baldwin's Artificers were of the same grade of Flower's, is evidenced not only by the history of the two Corps, but by the action of Congress in November 1779, putting them on precisely the same footing, in all respects.
You remarked yesterday, that Flower's Regiment was a special Corps , and seemed to think that might be a reason for making it an exception to the rule above mentioned. I answer that it was the only Corps in the Continental line, of the same grade as Col. Baldwin's Corps, or of a similar grade . To carry out your rule, you must look to the Continental line for the rate of pay governing the pensions of Col. Baldwin's Corps, for service previous to the time of their being incorporated into the Continental line. And when you look to the Continental line to find the rate, surely you will not pass by the only Corps in said line of the same grade , and resort to Corps of an entirely different grade, such as the Infantry or Cavalry . I must confess, I do not very clearly see the point of the argument, founded upon the fact that Flower's regiment was a special

corps. I do not see how it was any more special than any other distinct branch of the army, except that it was less numerous. It was one distinct branch of our national defence, and so was the Continental Navy , in regard to which you applied the rule now under consideration. The navy was a special corps , as contradistinguished from the army. Yet you make the pay in the Continental navy, govern pensions for service in the same grade, but not in the Continental line .
I repeat, that in accordance with the established rule, you must look to the Continental line , for the rate of pay to govern the pensions of Col. Baldwin's men, for services prior to the time they were themselves in the Continental line. And when you look to the Continental line, you must look to the pay allowed in said line to troops of the same and not of a different grade.
It can hardly be necessary add, that you cannot go back to 1776, (before Jesse Foot, or any one of the corps to which he belonged had enlisted,) to find the rate of pay then allowed by the Quarter-Master General, (but without express authority of law,) to artificers in his department. If you are to graduate the pension by the amount of pay actually allowed by the Q. M. General,

Surely you would adopt the rate allowed by him while the claimant was in service ; and that would give a larger pension than I claim.
It appears to me equally unnecessary to discuss the effect of the Resolution of 19 th December 1772, which directs that "all the artificers who have not been settled with up to the last day of December 1781, be settled with for pay and dispre- ciation from the 1 st day of August 1780, to the last day of December 1781, at the rate of $12. per month, and upon such settlement receive their dues in funded certificates."
Admit that this resolution reduces the pay to $12. per month, after the 1 st of August 1780 —how can it affect the claim of M c Fe Foote, whose term of service expired on the said 1 st of August 1780 ? Neither can it affect the case of any one of the eleven companies enlisted in 1777, for they were nearly all out of service before the 1 st of August 1780—and all those who had not gone out of service before that day, had at least served two years previous to that time. Col. Baldwin's Regiment was disolved by a Resolution of 29 th March 1781, one year and nine months prior to the passage of said Resolution.
Very respectfully submitted
J. E. Hutton Esq.
J. L. Coombs.

Sir,
I have examined with great care the argument of Mr Coombs in regard to the pay of an artificer, and have the honor to submit to you my conclusion on the subject.
The principle intended to be recognized by me, in a former informal communication, was simply this - that artificers who belonged to Col d Baldwin's regiment were placed by the resolution of Nov r 16. 1779. on the same footing, as to pay, with the "Artillery Artificers" of Col d Flowers' Reg t and that, anterior to that resolution, they were entitled to a pension, if at all, with the  in accordance pay they might have been entitled to in the line of the army. If that pay had been $12 per month then their pay would be increased by that resolution, if $30, then it would be decreased , provided such pay was under the regulations of the regular line Continental Line. It would perhaps have been better had I used the term fixed , as then there could have been no misconception or misapprehension on the subject.
But to proceed with Mr Coombs argument. Congress passed a resolution on the 2 d Dec r 1778. as follows "This Congress approve the terms on which the artificers of different sorts have been employed in the army and that the General go on upon the present agreement , as being the best that can probably be made".
The phraseology here used does not convey to my

mind any thing like the idea of a military enlistment. The resolution speaks of " employment " in the army and the " present agreement " as being "the best that can probably be made". Under the language here used I should say that artificers were artisans employed in the army, under an agreement which might be varied according to the exigency of circumstances.
If these artificers were employed as above, until the 16 th of Nov- 1779., and I am not aware of any legislation by Congress which placed them on a different footing, whatever may have been the compensation for which they agreed to serve and however varied may have been the rates which it was found necessary to allow, they were not within the purview of the pension laws, not having been recognized by Congress as belonging to the Continental Line, and they where nothing more than mechanics employed in the army, under specific contracts. If such was the case the artificers of the eleven companies embodied under Col d Baldwins command by the resolution of the 16 of Nov- 1779. became then for the first time members of the Continental Line and, as such, entitled to military pensions, as soldiers.
Many of these men were, as we are told, detailed from the line and made artificers , others again were taken from civil life. If so the soldiers or those detailed from the line were entitled to pensions, as soldiers , their pay as artificers , if in fact they were allowed increased pay being a benefit super added on account of the mechanical skill, and ability to act as Artisans , and consequently did not affect

mind any thing like the idea of a military enlistment. The resolution speaks of " employment " in the army and the " present agreement " as being "the best that can probably be made". Under the language here used I should say that artificers were artisans employed in the army, under an agreement which might be varied according to the exigency of circumstances.
If these artificers were employed as above, until the 16 th of Nov r 1779, and I am not aware of any legislation by Congress which placed them on a different footing, whatever may have been the compensation for which they agreed to serve and however varied may have been the rates which it was found necessary to allow, they were not within the purview of the pension laws, not having been recognized by Congress as belonging to the Continental Line, and they were nothing more than mechanics employed in the army, under specific contracts. If such was the case the artificers of the eleven companies embodied under Col d Baldwins command by the resolution of the 16 th of Nov r 1779, became them for the first time members of the Continental Line and, as such, entitled to a military pensions, as soldiers.
Many of these men were, as we are told, detailed from the line and made artificers , others again were taken from civil life. If so the soldiers or those detailed from the line were entitled to pensions, as soldiers , their pay as artificers , if in fact they were allowed increased pay, being a benefit super added on account of the mechanical skill, and ability to act as Artisans, and consequently did not affect

the relation in which they stood as enlisted soldiers , so long as their terms of enlistment lasted.
The resolution of Nov r 16. 1779 constituted these artificers, a Reg d under Col d Baldwin placed them in a new relation and made them members of the Continental Line, with the same pay as the "Artillery Artificers" under Col d Howes who had been constituted a Reg d , when raised, by the Resol n the Action of Congress which was consummated by the Resol n of Feby 11 th 1778.
These two corps then were made equal as to pay by the resolution of Nov r 16. 1779. and were to receive $20 per month, or such increased pay as Col d Howes, to whom Congress had expressly delegated the power to increase the pay, if in his discretion he thought proper, might indicate.
If in the exercise of this discretion Col d Howes at any time  after Nov r 16. 1779. increased the pay in the manner indicated by the resolution of Feby 11. 1778. Baldwin's men became, ipso facto , entitled to a similar increase, but the fact of increase in due form should be established with the time for which it lasted.
I do not regard the actual compensation as the standard of pension, but the rate of pay established recognized by Congress in any branch of military service. A subsequent sanction by Congress of settlements of accounts previously made, as in the original case of Artificers, is not in my opinion an establishment of the rate of pay, within the contemplation of the pension laws, as these artificers were not at the time in the regular line of military service.

I do not think that Baldwin's men or rather the artificers who were embodied subsequently under Col l Baldwin were within the meaning of the resolution of February 11. 1778, which says "that all officers, artificers and others in the ordnance and military Department shall be governed by the rules of war in the same manner as other officers in the artillery of the United States ", simply because they were not " in the ordnance and Military Department " and therefore could not be governed "in the same manner as other officers in the Artillery of the United States ". They belonged to the Quarter Master's Department. Col l Howards Reg t at that time stood upon a different footing, inasmuch as, at its creation, it was recognized as a branch of the Artillery service.
In support of this last position I will in conclusion quote from the letter of Col l Pickering in speaking of the artificers in his Department dated Oct r 22. 1780, (see page 60) says, "Artificers with the army are in fact indispensably necessary; and hereafter they may form a useful corps in action as they are to be furnished with arms and at certain times instructed in the use of them". "They had not then previously been "useful in action" and had not been "furnished with arms" nor "at certain times" been "instructed in the use of them". Military service claims pensions chiefly on account of the dangers and fatigues incurred "in action".
Very Resp y
Y r Ob t Serv t
H. H. Davis
J. E. Heath Esq. Comm r of Pensions

Feb. 5 th 1778
"Resolved, That the following plan be adopted for carrying into immediate execution the important business of the Quarter Master General
"1 st The Military line, to be stated the Quarter Master General's, which is to include the regulating of marches, encampments, order of battle, &c. &c. as described in the books of the profession.

Nov. 12 th 1779 - "That The Officers and men of said Corps [Baldwin's Artificers] be  con- sidered as part of the quota of 80 batta- lions as apportioned on the several States to which they respectively be- long."
Res. of 28 th Feb. 1780.
Gives The Officers of Col. Baldwin's Corps, increased subsistence of 100 dollars per month, under resolution of 18 th August 1779, from the date of said resolution.

Washington, August 10 th 1850.
Sir:
Enclosed we present you the declaration of Jesse F. Foot, son of Jesse Foot, late of New York, deceased, who was a revolutionary pensioner at the rate of $144 per annum, for services as an artificer in the War of the Revolution. This claim for an increase of said Pension, is made upon the authority of a decision lately made in the case of Thomas Sigget, of New York.
Very respectfully Your obt. Servts. Dickens & Coombs
J. L. Edwards Esq. Comm r of Pensions.

John Doot pensioner
Forwarded Nov 5 1833 by Frank H. Gray Clinton County N.Y.

Declarations
By John Foot of Onondaga County, N. Y. - under the act of June 1832 -
State of New York
Onondaga County, ss: On this 12 th day of July 1832.
Personally appeared before Nathan Kimball Esq. one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of said County of Onondaga - at the Town of Vernon, in said County: John Foot, a resident of Vernon, aforesaid - aged seventy six years, who being first duly sworn, according to law, doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the provisions made by the act of Congress passed June 7 th 1832.
76
That he entered the service of the United States, under the following named officer & served as herein stated: That at Old Stockbridge, County of Berkshire & State of Massachusetts, on the first day of May 1776, this deponent volunteered as a private in Capt. Isaac Mackie's Company, of Col. Worcester's Connecticut Regt. of Miss s Provenza's for the term of three months; and was honorably discharged from said service on the first day of August, 1776.
Provenza's Connecticut Regt. of Miss s Provenza's for the term of three months; and was honorably discharged from said service on the first day of August, 1776.
That he marched as a private in said Company - Stockbridge, thence to Tyrondoye, and was stationed at Tyrondoye during said term of three months.

That on the first of April 1867, at New Canaan, Columbia County New York, this respondent was drafted as a private in Capt. Ebenezer Ledy's Company of Col. Asa Watrous's Regt. for the period of three months, that he faithfully served said three months in said service, and was honorably discharged on the first day of July, 1867, at Fishkill, N. Y.
That as a private in said Company - marched to Sheffield Mass. - that they remained at Sheffield aforesaid, and marched thence to Fishkill and was stationed at Fishkill during the remainder of said term.
That at New Canaan - aforesaid on the first day of October 1880 - this respondent was drafted as a private, in Capt. Ebenezer Ledy's Company of Col. Van Cannell's Regt. of Genl. Robert Van Cannell's Brigade of the New York Militia, for the term of three months - that he faithfully served said three months, as a private in said service, and was honorably discharged from said service, at Fort Stannix (now Fort Slocum) - N. Y.
That he marched as a private in said Company - first to Florida - thence they were stationed at Florida one month, thence marched to Fort Hunter, Florida.

thence up the Mohawk to Fort Stanwix, and remained to garrison Fort Stanwix till the troops that marched to Onondaga, & drove the Indians, Tories &c - from that part of the State of New York. That Place to which said belonged, was near Jasper Hill on the Mohawk, where the battle, between the N. York Militia, under Johnson's Indians, Tories &c - was fought: in which Col Brown was killed.
That he was born & christened here in the year 1757.
Has a record of his age in his house.
When he was first called into said service, he lived in Old Stockbridge, Mass. in 1777 - lived at New Canaan Columbia County - & removed to his present residence from Columbia County in 1812, & has re- sided in his present residence the last 21 years.
That he volunteered into said service in 1776 - & was drafted in 1777 - &
That Major Moore, - with the Boys from Mendonhook - was at Fort Stanwix with said army. - That there were several Boys at Fort Stanwix, at the time last aforesaid.
That he received no written discharge from said service.

I, Jonathan Pratt  Pratt a clergyman residing in Westminster - County of West  Westminster , and Abijah Foot of Vernon - County of West  West are persons to whom this dissonant is known in his present neighbourhood - and who can testify as to his character for veracity, & the reliability of his services as a Soldier of the Rev- -olution.
He hereby relinquishes every claim whatever to a pension or annuity at the the present, and declares that his name is not on the pension roll of the Agency of any State.
That he knows of no other evidence of said services than that herein there- -with exhibited.
And this deponent further says, that from old age, and the consequent loss of memory this dissonant is unable to state further than herein set forth, the events connected with said service.
Sworn & Subscribed the day & year first above written.
John Wood
2 Nathan Kimball & Judson Occida common pleads.

State of New York
Onondaga County ss. We Jonathan P Simmons -
a clergyman residing in Westmoreland Oneida and Adonyah Foot of Vernon in said county do hereby certify that we are well acquainted with John Foot who has subscribed and sworn to the foregoing declaration, that we believe him to be sixty six years of age that he is respected and beloved in the neighborhood where he resides to have been a soldier of the Revolution, and that we concur in that opinion
Sworn to Subscribed this 27 th day of Augt 1833
Eld J P Simmons Adonyah Foot
Nathan Kimball, Judge of the said common pleas,
State of New York
Onondaga County ss. Nathan Kimball - one of
the judges of the court of common pleas of said county - do that after due investigation of the matter, and after putting the interrogatories presented by the War Department, that the above named applicant has a revolutionary soldier and served as he states. And that it appears to me that Jonathan P Simmons, who has signed the foregoing certificate is a clergyman - resident in the Town of Westmoreland in said county and that Adonyah Foot - who has also subscribed the same, is a credible person and that their

Statement is entitled to credit Dated the 27 th day of August - 1833 Nathan Kimball Judge of Oneida common pleas
State of New York Oneida County
ss. I George Brown - Clerk of said County of Oneida - do hereby certify: That the foregoing contains the original proceedings, in the matter of the application of John Foot for a pension. And I do further certify, that Nathan Kimball Esq. before whom the foregoing proceedings were had, was at the time the same were had, one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, of said County of Oneida: And that said court is a court of record by statute.
And I do further certify, that I am well acquainted with the hand writing of said judge, and that his signature sub- scribed to said declaration - certificate & affidavit are his proper hand writing and seal.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said court Nov 2 1833 Geo Brown Clerk
this 2 nd day of Nov 1833

State of New York Duties on Goods
of New York in County ss: I George Brown Clerk of the County of Onondaga do hereby certify - That Nathan H. Kimball Esq. whose name is subscribed to the foregoing certificate bearing date the twenty fifth day of February - last - was at the time said certificate bears date one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of said County. - And I do further certify That said signature is the proper hand writing of said Judge - & genuine.
Witness my hand & seal office this 18 th day of March 1834 Geo Brown Clerk

John Foote Sued Oct 1852. arg
A. H. Clarkland

State of New York } County of Wyoming }
Be it Known, that on this First day of November A. D. 185 2 before me, the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace, in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared John Foote
resident of Johnsonburg in said County, and made oath according to law that: he is the legal heir of John Foote who was a Soldier in the war of the Revolution, and who has heretofore made application for the benefit of the Pension Act of:
That: he is directly interested as a claimant in said Pension, and makes this affidavit to be filed with such additional evidence or arguments as my Agent may use in prosecuting said claim.
Countermanding and revoking all Powers of Attorney and authority heretofore given, I hereby constitute and appoint C. W. BENNETT , of Washington City, my true and lawful Attorney to prosecute the claim of John Foote for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or increase of Pension that may be due; and I hereby authorize my said Attorney to examine all papers or documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Department at Washington City or elsewhere, to file additional evidence or arguments, and to receive for my exclusive benefit, the certificate which may be issued for said claim, which certificate I wish made payable at the Washington City, D. C. Agency; to appoint one or more substitutes under him for the purposes herein expressed, and to do all things that I might or could do were I personally present. Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises.
Sworn to, Subscribed, and Acknowledged before me the day and year above written, and I hereby certify that I believe the said John Foote to be directly interested in said claim as set forth, and to be the identical party therein alleged.
Ransom P. Lawrence Justice of the Peace
State of New York } County of Wyoming }
It is Hereby Certified, that satisfactory evidence has been exhibited before me, Clerk of the Court of Record of Wyoming County that John Foote the party who has sworn to, and acknowledged the foregoing Declaration and Power of Attorney, is the 1 o identical reputed soldier aforesaid. I further certify, that Ransom P. Lawrence Esq. before whom the preceding affidavit and Power of Attorney were made and acknowledged, was, at the time of so doing, a Justice of the Peace, in and for said County, and that the signature purporting to be his, I believe to be genuine.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of Office, this Second day of November 185 2
Ransom B. Crippen Clerk
1. Claimant's name or names in full.—2. Post Office address. 3. "That he is the identical man," or, "that she is the widow of the identical man," or, "that he or she is the legal heir of the identical man," &c., &c. 4. Leave this line blank.—5. "He is," "she is," or "they are."—6. Revolutionary soldier's full name.—7. Claimant's signature.—8. Claimant's name.—9. Magistrate's signature. 10. "Identical," "widow of," or, "child of."—11. Magistrate's name.—12. Clerk's signature.
N. B.—Should two or more heirs join in the foregoing, the plural should be substituted for the singular number.

R3639 OM
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF PENSIONS.
Washington, D. C., _____, 19_____
In reply to your request of _____, received _____ for a statement of the military history of John Foot , a soldier of the REVOLUTIONARY WAR, you will find below the desired information as contained in his (or his widow's) application for pen- sion on file in this Bureau.
   DATES OF ENLISTMENT OR APPOINTMENT. LENGTH OF SERVICE. RANK. OFFICERS UNDER WHOM SERVICE WAS RENDERED. STATE.   CAPTAIN. COLONEL.     May 1. 1776 3 mos Pvt. Isaac Marsh Rosseter Mass.   Apr. 1. 1777 3 " " Ebenezer Ladd Asa Waterman N.Y.   Oct. 1. 1780 3 " " Ebenezer Ladd Van Rensselaer "  
Battles engaged in, _____ Residence of soldier at enlistments, Old Stockbridge, Mass & New Canaan, N.Y. Date of application for pension, July 12, 1833. Residence at date of application, Vernon, Oneida Co. N.Y. Age at date of application, born at Colchester, Conn. in 1757- Remarks: Sol. d. in 1833.
The claim was not allowed owing to lack of proof of the services alleged as above.
In 1832, one John Foot of Johnsonburg, Wyoming Co. N.Y. claimed to be soldier's heir Respectfully, relationship not stated. There is no further data on file as to family see 1 st Capt & col. in Mass. Vol. X - p. 243 - Commissioner. but no record of soldier under him

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

86 E. Hance St. Auburn, N.Y. Feb. 28 1920
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions.
May I have a copy of the Revolutionary War record of one John Foote of Chatham, N.Y. date of birth not known, who married Elizabeth Batcock Dec. 30, 1784. She died in 1832 aged 72 years. He died Dec. 13, 1833 in Vernon, N.Y.
My information regarding his War record, gives his rank as Corporal in 5 th Co. (Capt. Jno. Dine) Col. Whiting's 14 th Albany Co. Regiment

2 of New York. Also as private in Paulings 3 rd Ulster Co. Reg. Capt. Paulings Co. 1778-81.
Is this correct? Is there any record of the date of his birth or in what action he participated and may I have the documentary reference necessary for application for membership in D. A. R.
Thanking you I am
Yours Very Truly -
Etella J. Harvis.
(Mrs. W. J. Harvis.)

3639
P. O. _____
John Foot
Service: _____
REJECTED
Enlisted: _____, 18
Discharged: _____, 18
Application filed: _____, 18
Alleges: The printed list of 1851 gives cause of suspension as follows;
Re-enlisted: "Mr Banks' certificate of service was promised on May 6, 1834, but it has not made its appearance."
Attorney: _____
P. O. _____
_____ Recognized. _____ Contract.
_____ Cert. of Dis. Searched for _____, 18

Rev. Mr. H. Kest. to Mrs. W. J. Howie

Commencement of Pensions }
Sir
I wish to look at the papers of John Fort (who is now deceased) he made an application for a Pension in 1837 under the act of 1832 - Suspense Case was in the New York Service -
Also The papers of James Phelps -
H. R. Gilbert

John Hart. suspended act 7 June 1832. New York
For Francis A. Dickinson.

W. Wm. H.
Aug 23/53
[Faint, mirrored handwritten text, likely bleed-through from the reverse side of the page]

Pension Office
Aug 23 1853
Sir
You file Powers of Attorney, and express a hope soon to be able to produce additional evidence in the following cases, Gilbert Ferris, Benjamin Henton, John Fort, Squire Ferris, David Warren, Thomas Hampstead, Isaac Haviland, Solomon Robbins, Robert Langford, Paul Sheffield, Isaac Stredicker Stredicker, Martin Van Buren, & Hiram Williams, N.Y. act June 7 1832, and Mary Smalling and Mary Vanderwerker of NY act July 4 1836. When the additional evidence is filed. Reports will be made to you, —
C. W. Burnett Present
C. W. Burnett Present

Washington June 6 th 1853.
Dear S.P. Waldo.
Comm ee of Pensions. Sir
I have the honor to enclose herewith a power of attorney executed by the heirs of John Foote dec d of the State of New York, whose claim under act of July 7 th 1832. has been suspended.
I hope to be enabled to file additional evidence in the case sufficient to establish the claim before it comes up for examination.
Very Respectfully
Your Obed t Serv t .
C. W. Bennett.

John Hook
John Hook born in 1731 died in 1801

J. L. Bingham Esq. House of Sen rs City of Washington D. C.
John Scott

Clinton County May 22 d 1837
Sir
Enclosed are several affidavits subscribed by some of the most reputable persons - in this neighbourhood - in support of the claims of the heirs of the late John Foot; - This is one of the claims which were made in 1832 - or 3 - and suspended finally on account of the Massachusetts Rolls - and subsequently - in consequence of the mislaying the valuation &c. at the Pension Office - This application has caused a considerable trouble and expense - if the whole case taken together will not entitle the heirs to more than a "six months" pension - they wish that a certificate may be given for that time - but for myself I can say unhesitatingly that I have the time the confidence in the affidavit of the late John Foot that I should have in the miserable remains of military records - I have no hesitation as the heirs of John Foot being entitled to all he claimed -
I am Sir Briefly
Your obed Serv A. H. L. Bragg -
J. G. Edwards Esq. Comr of Pensions City of Washington

O. C. Navy
6. April 1837
O. C.
Record Vol 45. P 304.

War Dept. Pension Office April 6. 1837
Sir,
A pension certificate will be issued to Joel Green; but the cases cases of Isaac Merritt, John Foot and Peter Eastman must remain suspended for reasons already communicated to you.
S
Entp.
A. C. Crary Esq Clinton Oneida County N. York
Entl'd this e a h. Y. Mdy out 132 Peter Eastman 19754 Isaac Merritt 21842 John Foot 28925

Arch s liary Sept 16 1835-
a. C.
Rec d Vol. 35. pa. 32

War Depart t
Pension Office
Sept. 16 1835
Sir
In reply to your enquiry respecting the case of John Root Foot I have to inform you that it has not been laid by since Aug t 34 for the certificate of Mr Bangs promised in your letter of 6 Aug '34 but which has not been received — The claim will be promptly disposed of whenever that evidence of his alleged service shall be furnished
Arch d Crary Esq r Clinton N York

Clinton Oneida County Aug 11 th 1834
Sir
Enclosed are Mr John Cook's pension papers, corrected as directed. The certificate of Mr Bangs, I have requested him to forward to the Pensions Office.
I am Sir Respectfully Yours the Servt A. H. Hovey
J. Le Bonard, Esq. Court of Sessions City of Washington

John Cook
Mr. J. J. Brown Somerset House City of Washington
FREE

FREE
Schene N.Y.
J. L. Edwards Esq. Court of Oyer and terminer City of Washington
John Brock

Clinton David County Sept 1 st 1835
Sir
Ten or twelve months since I forwarded to the Pension Office of the United States - three sets of pension papers - among which was one for John Foot - - there has been no answer returned to my letter accompanying them; which induces me to believe they miscarried - will you Sir be so good as to inform if they have been received.
I am Sir respectfully Your obedt Servt A. H. Sprague
J. H. Edwards Esq. Pension Office City of Washington

28925
John Gatch
Ref to E.D. Bangs
Dec 23 '33
See Vol 8, p 25 - f 6.91
mo 1. 1
3. -
4. 1 3 -
Arch d Crum Egan
Clinton
2. 1844 3 New York 1844 3

WAR DEPARTMENT,
Pension Office,
Dec 8 '33
Sir:
The evidence in support of your claim, under the act of June 7, 1832, has been examined, and the papers are herewith returned. The following is a statement of your case in a tabular form. On comparing these papers with the following rules and the subjunct notes, you will readily perceive that objections exist, which must be removed, before a pension can be allowed. The notes and the regulations will shew what is necessary to be done. Those points to which your attention is more particularly directed, you will find marked in the margin with a brace, (thus: { ). You will, when you return your papers to this Department, send this printed letter with them; and you will, by complying with this request, greatly facilitate the investigation of your claim.
A Statement, shewing the Service of John Hook
   Period when the service was rendered. Duration of the claimant's service. Rank of the claimant. Names and rank of the Field officers under whom he served. Age at present, and place of abode when he entered the service. Proof by which the declaration is supported.   Years. Months. Days.              
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
JAMES L. EDWARDS,
Commissioner of Pensions.

REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1832.
The following regulations have been adopted:
This law has been construed to extend, as well to the line, as to every branch of the Staff of the Army, and to include under the terms "Continental Line," "State troops," "militia," and "volunteers," all persons enlisted, drafted, or who volunteered and who were bound to military service, but not those who were occasionally employed with the army upon civil contracts, such as Clerks to Commissaries and to Store Keepers, &c., Teamsters, Boatmen, &c. Persons who served on board of private armed vessels are also excluded from the benefits of the law, as well as persons who turned out as patrols, or were engaged in guarding particular places at night, and were not recognized as being in actual military service.
Four general classes of cases are embraced in this law:
 1. The Regular Troops.  2. The State Troops, Militia, and Volunteers.  3. Persons employed in the Naval Service.  4. Indian Spies. 
As rolls of the regular troops in the Revolutionary War exist in this Department, all persons claiming the benefit of this law as officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians or privates, will, in the first instance, make application by transmitting the following declaration, which will be made before a Court of Record of the County where such applicant resides. And every Court having by law a seal and Clerk is considered a Court of Record.
DECLARATION,
In order to obtain the benefit of the Act of Congress of the 7th of June, 1832.
State, Territory, or District of } ss. County of } On this day of personally appeared (a) before A. B. a resident (b) of in the county of and State, Territory or District of aged (c) years, who being first duly sworn, according to law, doth on his oath make the following declaration, in order to obtain the benefit of the provision made by the act of Congress, passed June 7th, 1832. That he enlisted in the Army of the United States in the year (d) , with and served in the (e) regiment of the line, under the following named officers :
[Here set forth the names and rank of the Field and Company Officers ; the time he left the service ; (and if he served under more than one term of enlistment, he must specify the particular period, and rank and names of his officers;) the town or county and State in which he resided when he entered the service ; the battles, if any, in which he was engaged, and the country through which he marched. (This form is to be varied so as to apply to the cases of officers and persons who belonged to the militia, volunteers, navy, &c.)]
He hereby relinquishes every claim (f) whatever to a pension or an annuity, except the present, and he declares that his name is not on the Pension Roll of any Agency in any State, or (if any) only on that of the Agency in the State of
Sworn to and subscribed the day and year aforesaid.
A. B.
[And then will follow the certificate of the Court.]
And the said Court do hereby declare their opinion (g) that the above named applicant was a revolutionary soldier, and served as he states.
I of the Court of do hereby certify (h) that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of for a pension.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office (i) this day of &c.
If, on examination of the proper record, the names of applicants, making such declaration, cannot be found, they will produce such proof as the rule given in note (j) points out.
Every applicant who claims a pension by virtue of service in the State Troops, Volunteers or Militia, except those who belonged to the New Hampshire Militia and State Troops of Virginia, will make and subscribe a declaration similar to the foregoing, with the following additions, viz:
(k) We, A. B., a Clergyman, residing in the and C. D. residing in (the same) hereby certify, that we are well acquainted with , who has subscribed and sworn to the above declaration; that we believe him to be years of age; that he is reputed and believed, in the neighborhood where he resides, to have been a soldier of the Revolution, and that we concur in that opinion.
Sworn and subscribed the days and year aforesaid.
[And then will follow the certificate of the Court.]
And the said Court do hereby declare their opinion, after the investigation of the matter, and after putting the interrogatories prescribed by the War Department, that the above named applicant was a Revolutionary Soldier, and served as he states. And the Court further certifies, that it appears to them that A. B. who has signed the preceding certificate is a clergyman, resident in the and that C. D., who has also signed the same is a resident in the and is a credible person, and that their statement is entitled to credit.
I, Clerk of the Court of do hereby certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court, in the matter of the application of for a pension.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office, this day of &c.
Every applicant will produce the best proof in his power. This is the original discharge or commission; but if neither of these can be obtained, the party will so state under oath, and will then procure, if possible, the testimony of at least one credible witness, stating in detail his personal knowledge of the services of the applicant, and such circumstances connected therewith, as may have a tendency to throw light upon the transaction.
If such surviving witness cannot be found, the applicant will so state in his declaration, (l) and he will also, whether he produce such evidence or not, proceed to relate all the material facts, which can be useful in the investigation of his claim, and in the comparison of his narrative with the events of the period of his
By applying to E. D. Bangs, Secretary of the State of Massachusetts proof of the first term of service may be obtained

alleged service, as they are known at the Department. A very full account of the services of each person will be indispensable to a favorable action upon his case. The facts stated will afford one of the principal means of corroborating the declaration of the applicant, if true, or of detecting the imposition, if one be attempted; and unless, therefore, these are amply and clearly set forth, no favorable decision can be expected. All applicants will appear before some Court of Record in the County in which they reside, and there subscribe and be sworn to, one of the declarations above provided, according to the nature of his case.
The Court will propound the following (m) interrogatories to all applicants for a pension, on account of service in the Militia, State troops, or Volunteers, except the Militia of New Hampshire and the State troops of Virginia.
 1. Where and in what year were you born?  2. Have you any record of your age, and if so, where is it?  3. Where were you living when called into service; where have you lived since the Revolutionary war, and where do you now live?  4. How were you called into service; were you drafted, did you volunteer, or were you a substitute? And if a substitute, for whom?  5. State the names of some of the Regular Officers, who were with the troops, where you served; such Continental and Militia Regiments as you can recollect, and the general circumstances of your services.  6. { To a Soldier. } Did you ever receive a discharge from the service, and if so, by whom was it given, and what has become of it? { To an Officer. } Did you ever receive a commission, and if so, by whom was it signed, and what has become of it?  7. State the names of persons to whom you are known in your present neighborhood, and who can testify as to your character for veracity, and their belief of your services as a soldier of the Revolution. 
The Court will see that the answers to these questions are embodied in the declaration, and they are requested to annex their opinions of the truth of the statement of the applicant.
The applicant will further produce in Court, if the same can be done, in the opinion of the Court, without too much expense and inconvenience to him, two respectable persons—one of whom should be the nearest clergyman, if one lives in the immediate vicinity of such applicant, who can testify, from their acquaintance with him, that they believe he is of the age he represents, and that he is reputed and believed in the neighborhood to have been a Revolutionary soldier, and that they concur in that opinion. If one of these persons is a Clergyman, the Court will so certify, and they will also certify to the character and standing of other persons giving such certificates.
The traditional evidence of service is deemed very important, in the absence of any direct proof, except the declaration of the party. And the Courts are requested to be very particular in the inquiry whether the belief is general, and whether any doubts have ever existed upon the subject.
Applicants unable to appear in Court, by reason of bodily infirmity, may make the declaration required, and submit to the examination, before a Judge or Justice of a Court of Record of the proper county, and the Judge or Justice will execute the duties, which the Court is herein requested to perform, and will also certify that the applicant cannot, from bodily infirmity, attend the Court.
Whenever any official act is required to be done by a Judge or Justice of a Court of Record, or by a Justice of the Peace, the certificate of the Secretary of State or Territory, or of the proper Clerk of the Court or County, under his seal of office, will be annexed, stating that such person is a Judge or Justice of a Court of Record, or a Justice of the Peace, and that the signature annexed is his genuine signature.
No payments can be made on account of the services of any person, who may have died before the taking effect of the act of June 7, 1832; and in case of death subsequent thereto, and before the declaration herein required is made, the parties interested will transmit such evidence as they can procure, taken and authenticated before a Court of Record, showing the services of the deceased, the period of his death, the opinion of the neighborhood respecting such services, the title of the claimant, and the opinion of the Court upon the whole matter.
[a] The declarant must appear in open Court, unless prevented from doing so by reason of bodily infirmity; in which case the declarant will follow the rule laid down for his guidance.
[b] The declarant must make his declaration in the county where he resides. If he should fail to do so, he must assign a sufficient reason for not conforming to the rule.
[c] The age of the claimant must invariably be mentioned.
[d] The declarant must mention the period or periods of the war when he served.
[e] Every continental officer or soldier must give the name of the Colonel under whom he served; otherwise a satisfactory examination of the claim cannot be had. Every claimant must state, with precision, the length of his service, and the different grades in which he served, in language so definite as to enable the Department to determine to what amount of pension he is entitled. In a case where the applicant cannot, by reason of the loss of memory, state precisely how long he served, he should amend his declaration by making an affidavit in the following words:
"Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace, &c. A. B. who, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that, by reason of old age, and the consequent loss of memory, he cannot swear positively as to the precise length of his service; but, according to the best of his recollection, he served not less than the periods mentioned below, and in the following grades:—For _____ year _____ months, and _____ days, I served as a _____. For _____ months and _____ days, I served as a _____; and for such service I claim a pension."
It is important, in all cases, to determine with precision the period for which each applicant served, and the particular rank he held, as the law directs the pension to be paid according to the grade of the pensioner and the length of his service. The use of the phrase about three or four months , is too indefinite, and all such qualifying expressions are objectionable. Some persons who apply for pensions merely state that they served two years in the militia, &c. without specifying the tours, the names of the officers, and other particulars respecting their service. This form of a declaration is highly objectionable. It must, in every case, be clearly shown under what officers the applicant served; the duration of each term of engagement; the particular place or places where the service was performed; that the applicant served with an embodied corps called into service by competent authority; that he was either in the field or in garrison; and for the time during which the service was performed, he was not employed in any civil pursuit.
[f] The law makes the relinquishment indispensable.
[g] The opinion of the Court is always required.
[h] The Clerk must give his certificate in every case.
[i] The Clerk must affix his seal, and if it has no device or inscription by which it can be distinguished from any other seal, or if he has no public seal of office, the certificate of a Member of Congress, proving the official character and signature of the certifying officer, should accompany the papers.
Mode of authenticating papers.
In every instance where the certificate of the certifying officer who authenticates the papers is not written on the same sheet of paper which contains the affidavit, or other papers authenticated, the certificate must be attached thereto by a piece of tape or narrow ribbon, the ends of which must pass under the seal of office of the certifying officer, so as to prevent any paper from being improperly attached to the certificate.
Proof of Service.
[j] In a case where the name of the applicant is not found on the records of the Department, he must prove his service by two credible witnesses who are required to set forth in their affidavits the time of the claimant's entering the service, and the time and manner of his leaving the same, as well as the regiment, company, and line to which he belonged. The magistrate who may administer the oaths must certify to the credibility of the witnesses, and the official character and signature of the magistrate must be certified by the proper officer, under his seal of office.
[k] The notes from [a] to [i] are all equally applicable to the cases of Militia men, Volunteers and State Troops. The proof required by rule in note [j] applies to continental troops only.
[l] This traditional evidence is indispensable in militia cases.
[m] If a witness cannot be found, the declarant must state the fact.
[n] The answers to the interrogatories must all be written, and sent to the War Department, with the declaration.
Ans. 665

Dr. Drury N.Y.
27 March 1837
ob
Rec. Vol. 45. pa. 251

War Department Pension Office (March 27 183)
Sir The papers of John Hook have again been examined - No pay or muster roll of the Capt. Isaac Mearns Company has been found - Of Capt. Ebenezer Cady's Company for the years 1779. 80 there is a pay roll which shows when the claimant is credited for thirty one days service - If the applicant can bring any satisfactory further evidence of having served three months in Capt. Cady's Company in 1777 it will  may be allowed
A. C. Crampton Esq. Clinton County of Oneida New York

Three papers have been in the possession of a cloth dealer -

State of New York Onondaga County ss
Donald Foot of Vernon in said County being sworn says that he is 68 years of age - that he well recollects the late John Foot - being in the service of the United States - several times - but cannot now say how many; that he well recollects his being a captain in his company - of the Massachusetts militia - and that he had ever understood from said Foot till the time of his death that he served as a private in Capt. Cady's company - and that since the abolition of this regiment has ever heard from general report - that said John Foot - served in said company - (sworn and subscribed before me) Donald Foot the 5th of May 1837. A. J. Allen Judge
State of New York Onondaga County ss
Ira Hills - E. L. Bristol
being sworn - say that they have been well acquainted with John Foot - late of Vernon deceased - twenty two years previous to his decease - that it was uniformly the understanding and belief of these deponents that said Foot - served as a private in the company of the Massachusetts militia - commanded by Capt. Manning and Cady - of the Continental Army - and that they have said Foot - never heard it doubted or questioned that said John Foot was a soldier of said companies - and these deponents further say that said Foot - was a highly respectable person - and his statements entitled to the fullest credit -
I hereby certify that E. L. Bristol is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and is entitled to the highest credit - M. H. Smith Special Justice
Subscribed and sworn to the truth of the foregoing before me May 8th 1837. A. J. Allen Judge See Bills E. L. Bristol

Smithson Institution Forrest Hills — 6400 Birchmoor

State of New York Oneida County ss. I Agustin Allen — The parties of the foregoing — before whom Mr. J. S. ... affidavits were sworn — do hereby certify that Joe Hicks and James ... Boet
who have subscribed said affidavits are respectable persons and that their statements are entitled to credit — Agustin Allen Justice
State of New York Oneida County ss. I John D. Leland — Clerk of the County of Oneida do hereby certify — that Agustin Allen & William H. Hubbard — Esqrs before whom the foregoing affidavits were executed were at the time of the date of said affidavits — parties of the form in it for said County — that I am well acquainted with the handwriting of said parties and that their signatures to said affidavits — are genuine — and their proper hand writings —
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County — this 22 nd day of May 1837
John D Leland Clerk
1837